I believe that answer has finally been discovered through the long discussion that has taken place on the forum. Protesting for the increased application of direct democracy at the state level is just, constitutional, and practicable on the ground. It seems a productive course for direct engagement in furthering democracy.

Democracy=demos=power to the people. This was the intent of our founding fathers.

I believe that gsw and BradB on the OWS forum are charting that way . . . but there is a problem. Getting progressive thinkers together to push a single agenda has been alluded to humorously and I think accurately in the past as “trying to herd cats.” Therefore, if the answer is found, the question becomes . . . will people show the discipline to follow it through, or will we be seduced by what all intelligent people naturally find so alluring, the thrill of debate for its own sake?

GK

[-] 5 points by GypsyKing (9469) 5 days ago
For those who would like to understand the underlying thoughts that have brought me

The ECI is the first transnational direct democratic tool in history and allows a group of citizens, with the support of one million others from across Europe, to request changes in European law. This is not a referendum right and does not initiate a popular vote, however it’s also more legally potent than, say, a petition right. While the European Commission retains the right to initiate legislation, an ECI does force a consideration if it successfully completes the steps along the way.

I respect the work you have done here but there is a VERY serious flaw in your flow chart.
If you can get enough support for an AMENDMENT in the states or congress - that will work
BUT
There is no such thing as a LIMITTED Article V Convention
see our document #7http://corporationsarenotpeople.webuda.com/1_6_DOCUMENTS.html

I read you report and respect your work. Below report made for congress members! May want to look!

The Limited Convention
While the concept of the general convention enjoys considerable support, there are those who maintain opposing views. A broad range of constitutional scholars holds that a convention may, in fact, be limited to a specific area or areas contained in state applications, or indeed, that it must be so limited. A fundamental assumption of this viewpoint is that the framers did not contemplate a wholesale or large-scale revision of the Constitution when they drafted Article V. Senator Sam Ervin, a champion of advance congressional planning for a convention, wrote that, “... there is strong evidence that what the members of the convention were concerned with ... was the power to make specific amendments.... [The] [p]rovision in article V for two exceptions to the amendment power52 underlines the notion that the convention anticipated a specific amendment or amendments rather than general revision.”53
One commentator, championing the states’ authority in this question, noted that the founders’ intention in establishing the state petition device was to provide a check against a Congress that had declined to propose an amendment or amendments that commanded widespread support, suggesting that a convention limited by the subject area of state applications was constitutional, but that a convention could not be limited by Congress:
... Congress may not impose its will on the convention .... the purpose of the Convention Clause is to allow the States to circumvent a recalcitrant Congress. The convention Clause, therefore, must allow the States to limit a convention in order to accomplish this purpose.54
According to this view, the states should decide whether a convention would be open and general, or limited, depending on the actions of the several legislatures.
Congress, however, has historically sought to provide for limited conventions when it has considered this question. Once valid applications have been received from 34 states, it has maintained, the call for an Article V Convention must come from Congress, and Congress has the authority to limit the subject of amendments to be considered. It is at this step that Congress has asserted in the past, but not provided in legislation, its power to set limits as to the convention’s agenda. This suggests a delicate balance of authority: the states are authorized to apply for a limited convention, but only Congress can guarantee, by law, that a convention so summoned will confine its recommendations to the issues within its mandate.

Committee in 1984 claimed for Congress the power both to set and enforce limits on the subject or subjects considered by a convention summoned in response to state petitions that specified the consideration of amendments in particular areas. This was stated in the committee’s report on S. 119 in the 98th Congress, the “Constitutional Convention Implementation Act of 1984:”
Under this legislation, it is the States themselves, operating through the Congress, which are ultimately responsible for imposing subject-matter limitations upon the Article V Convention.... the States are authorized to apply for a convention “for the purpose of proposing one or more specific amendments.” Indeed, that is the only kind of convention within the scope of the present legislation, although there is not intention to preclude a call for a “general” or “unlimited” convention.55
A recent study by the Goldwater Institute56 reached similar conclusions. Examining the contemporary record at the time of the Constitutional Convention, the author asserted the founders anticipated that the Article V Convention would serve chiefly as an agent of the states. Consequently, the states could set the convention’s agenda by specifying the questions it would address, and that the convention would be bound to respect the limits of its mandate.57 Congress, in this viewpoint, acts to facilitate the will of the people acting through their state legislatures: if they call for a convention to consider one or more specific policy proposals, then Congress should call for an appropriately limited convention. If, however, the states petition for a general convention,58 then the argument can also be made in favor of the broader-based assembly.
Assuming that Congress does possess a constitutional mandate to limit the issue or issues a convention might consider, what sort of instruction would be appropriate to this task? Past legislative proposals offer a view of the most widely favored mechanism. First, Section 6(a) of S. 119 (98th Congress) cited earlier, required the concurrent resolution summoning an Article V Convention to “set forth the nature of the amendment or amendments for the consideration of which the convention is called.” Section 10(b) further required that
No convention called under this Act may propose any amendment or amendments of a nature different from that stated in the concurrent resolution calling the convention. Questions arising under this subsection shall be determined solely by the Congress of the United States and its decisions shall be binding on all others, including State and Federal courts.59
Alternatively, a number of scholars suggest that while state applications are not prescriptive with respect to the issue areas a convention may address, state intentions must given “great weight” by Congress when it calls a convention under Article V procedures. William Van Alstyne, writing in the Duke Law Journal in 1978 went so far as to assert that,

...[i]f two thirds of the state legislatures... agree on the exact wording of an amendment... this would seem to me to state the paradigm case in which Congress should proceed with the call ― and limit the agenda exactly in accordance with the unequivocal expressions of those solely responsible for the event.60

It is worth noting that the Goldwater Institute study offers a potential solution to this difficult question: the report suggests that an Article V Convention wishing to offer proposals outside the scope of its mandate could make additional policy recommendations, but not in the form of constitutional amendments.80 While these instruments would not enjoy the same constitutional status as amendments proposed by the convention, they would arguably be accorded considerable attention in Congress, the states, and the policy arena at large, and might serve as the foundation for a national debate on the questions they address.
Conversely, a substantial range of constitutional commentators holds that Congress is ultimately obliged to propose any and all amendments approved by an Article V Convention to the states. Writing in the late 1960s, when the campaign to overturn the Supreme Court’s decision on state legislative apportionment81 seemed poised to cross the 34-state threshold, Morris Forkosch asserted:
Congress has its own independent machinery to propose amendments in the first alternative, and to give Congress the power to review the proposals necessarily deprives the second alternative of its independence. As a result, Congress would become supreme, and Article V would automatically read that “The Congress ... call a[n advisory] Convention for proposing Amendments [to it]....” This would be an adoption of the very system rejected by the 1787 Convention.82
Professor Gerald Gunther similarly asserted that a congressional claim of veto power over amendments proposed by an Article V Convention directly contravened the founders’ intent:
In my view, the text, history and structure of Article V make a congressional claim to play a substantial role in setting the agenda of the convention highly questionable. If the state- initiated method for amending the constitution was designed for anything, it was designed to minimize (emphasis in original) the role of Congress. Congress was given only two ... extremely narrow responsibilities. First Congress must call the convention when thirty-four valid applications are at hand (and it is of course a necessary part of that task to consider the validity of the applications and set up the machinery for convening the convention). Second, Congress has the responsibility for choosing a method of ratification once the convention submits its proposals. I am convinced that is all that Congress can properly do.83
He went on to suggest that any effort by Congress to “veto” an amendment proposed by an Article V Convention might prove to be unsustainable. Its delegates, he asserted, might not go quietly, arguing instead that they acted with justification, despite efforts to restrict their mandate, and that a refusal by Congress to propose an amendment to the states thwarted “the opportunity of the people to be heard through the ratification process.”84 Ultimately, Congress might be faced with an embarrassing political dilemma:
... might not Congress find it impolitic to refuse to submit the convention’s proposals to ratification? I suggest that it is not at all inconceivable that Congress, despite its initial belief .....that it could impose limits, and despite its effort to impose such limits, would ultimately find it to be the course of least resistance to submit all of the proposals emanating from a convention ... to the ratification process, where the people would have another say.85

Ultimately, the question of whether Congress can refuse to propose an amendment may also depend on one of the issues addressed above: what manner of convention does Article V authorize? If only a limited convention is permissible, then Congress could argue strongly that it would be within its rights to refuse proposing an amendment that addressed an issue beyond the convention’s mandate. If Article V were interpreted to include a general convention, either as authorized in its call, or a convention that addresses issues beyond those cited in the applications that led to its call, then Congress would arguably have less standing to assert its role as judge of validity of Article V Convention proposals.

CRS Report for Congress
Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress
The Article V Convention to Propose
Constitutional Amendments: Contemporary
Issues for Congress
Thomas H. Neale
Specialist in American National Government
July 9, 2012

....could be roll of dice

The Limited Convention
While the concept of the general convention enjoys considerable support, there are those who
maintain opposing views. A broad range of constitutional scholars holds that a convention may, in
fact, be limited to a specific area or areas contained in state applications, or indeed, that it
must
be
so limited. A fundamental assumption of this viewpoint is that the framers did not contemplate a
wholesale or large-scale revision of the Constitu
tion when they drafted Article V. Senator Sam
Ervin, a champion of advance congressional planning for a convention, wrote that, “... there is
strong evidence that what the members of the convention were concerned with ... was the power
to make specific amendments.... [The] [p]rovision in article V for two exceptions to the
amendment power
52
underlines the notion that the convention anticipated a specific amendment
or amendments rather than general revision.”
53
One commentator, championing the states’ authority in this question, noted that the founders’
intention in establishing the state petition device was to provide a check against a Congress that
had declined to propose an amendment or amendments that commanded widespread support,
suggesting that a convention limited by the subject area of state applications was constitutional,
but that a convention could not be limited by Congress:
... Congress may not impose its will on the convention .... the purpose of the Convention
Clause is to allow the States to circumvent
a recalcitrant Congress. The convention Clause,
therefore, must allow the States to limit a convention in order to accomplish this purpose.
54
According to this view, the states should decide
whether a convention would be open and general,
or limited, depending on the actions of the several legislatures.
Congress, however, has historically sought to provide for limited conventions when it has
considered this question. Once valid applications have been received from 34 states, it has
maintained, the call for an Article V Conventi
on must come from Congress, and Congress has the
authority to limit the subject of amendments to be considered. It is at this step that Congress has
asserted in the past, but not provided in legislat
ion, its power to set limits as to the convention’s
agenda. This suggests a delicate balance of authority: the states are authorized to apply for a
limited convention, but only Congress can guarantee, by law, that a convention so summoned will
confine its recommendations to the issues within its mandate.

gsw... sorry I havn't contributed here yet.... I've just been so busy trying to get bills paid... havn't had time to study it... and too tried to think after working all day ... (I usually need to work a week each month.. and it's that time) ...

Following its spectacular plunge from grace in 2008 when its banking system crashed, inflicting huge damage on foreign creditors as well as on local residents, Iceland caught attention for trying to come to grips with what happened by bringing court cases against bankers and others allegedly responsible for the crash as well as for inviting the people of Iceland and its directly elected representatives to draft a new post-crash constitution designed inter alia to reduce the likelihood of another crash.

Up against the wall, with throngs of protesters boisterously banging their pots and pans in parliament square in Reykjavík, the post-crash government formed in 2009, to its credit, set the process in motion. A National Assembly was convened comprising 950 individuals selected at random from the national registry. Every Icelander 18 years or older had an equal chance of being selected to a seat in the assembly. Next, from a roaster of 522 candidates from all walks of life, 25 representatives were elected by the nation to a Constitutional Assembly to draft a new constitution reflecting the popular will as expressed by the National Assembly. Believe it or not, the Supreme Court, with eight of its nine justices at the time having been appointed by the Independence Party, now disgraced as the main culprit of the crash and in opposition, annulled the Constitutional Assembly election on flimsy and probably also illegal grounds, a unique event. The parliament then decided to appoint the 25 candidates who got the most votes to a Constitutional Council which took four months in 2011, as did the framers of the US constitution in Philadelphia in 1787, to draft and unanimously pass a new constitution. The constitutional bill stipulates, among other things: (a) electoral reform securing ‘one person, one vote’; (b) national ownership of natural resources; (c) direct democracy through national referenda; (d) freedom of information; and (e) environmental protection plus a number of new provisions designed to superimpose a layer of checks and balances on the existing system of semi-presidential parliamentary form of government. The preamble sets the tone: “We, the people of Iceland, wish to create a just society where everyone has a seat at the same table.” The people were invited to contribute to the drafting through the Constitutional Council’s interactive website. Foreign experts on constitutions, e.g. Prof. Jon Elster of Columbia University and Prof. Tom Ginsburg of the University of Chicago, have publicly praised the bill and the democratic way in which it was drafted.

Even so, it was clear from the outset that strong political forces would seek to undermine the bill. First, there are many politicians who think it is their prerogative and theirs alone to revise the constitution and view the National Assembly and the Constitutional Council elected by the people and appointed by parliament as intruders on their turf. Second, many politicians rightly worry about their reelection prospects under ‘one person, one vote’. Third, many politicians fear losing their clout with more frequent use of national referenda, and also fear exposure under a new freedom of information act. For example, a crucial telephone conversation between the prime minister and the governor of the Central Bank in the days before the crash in 2008 is still being kept secret even if a parliamentary committee has demanded to hear a recording of it. Last but not least, many vessel owners dislike the prospect of being deprived of their privileged and hugely profitable access to the common-property fishing grounds. As a matter of public record after the crash, politicians and political parties were handsomely rewarded by the banks before the crash. It does not take a rocket scientist to figure out that vessel owners must have likewise treated politicians and political parties generously in the past, an umbilical cord that many politicians clearly want to preserve.

In sum, it was clear that in a secret ballot the constitutional bill would never have had a chance of being adopted by parliament, not even after the national referendum on the bill on 20 October 2012 where 67% of the electorate expressed their support for the bill as well as for its main individual provisions, including national ownership of natural resources (83% said Yes), direct democracy (73% said Yes), and ‘one person, one vote’ (67% said Yes). But the parliament does not vote in secret. In fact, 32 out of 63 members of parliament were induced by an e-mail campaign organized by ordinary citizens to declare that they supported the bill and wanted to adopt it now. Despite these public declarations, however, the bill was not brought to a vote in the parliament, a heinous betrayal – and probably also an illegal act committed with impunity by the president of the parliament. Rather, the parliament decided to disrespect its own publicly declared will as well as the popular will as expressed in the national referendum by putting the bill on ice and, to add insult to injury, hastily requiring 2/3 of parliament plus 40% of the popular vote to approve any change in the constitution in the next parliament, meaning that at least 80% voter turnout would be required for a constitutional reform to be accepted in the next session of parliament. The politicians apparently paid no heed to the fact that under these rules Iceland’s separation from Denmark would not have been accepted in the referendum of 1918. In practice, this means that we are back to square one as intended by the enemies of the new constitution. There is faint hope that the new parliament will respect the will of the people if the outgoing one failed to do so despite its promises. In her farewell address, the outgoing Prime Minister, Jóhanna Sigurðardóttir, declared this to be the saddest day of her 35 years in parliament.

Freedom can't be legislated. If the people don't stand up for their rights now, no perfected piece of paper will protect them later.

What we need is an awakened population leading the effort for a more just Democracy. Placing an improved Constitution in front of a sleeping population now won't cause them to rise if an imperfect one didn't before.

We already had the laws in place to prosecute the criminal behavior of dozens of executives who were responsible for the financial crisis, but not a single one has because most people won't stand up and demand it.

What Americans really need is a large dose of the truth and courage that permeates the Occupy movement, to replace the blindness of patriotism and the selfishness of consumerism. Then we'll begin to make progress.

Mine works 40 minutes away, used to be a nurse, and she gave tour to my son's class when he was in 4th grade, a few years back.

I plan to reveal plan to her and ask if she would push it.

If she wont, I have power as citizen, and I may do anyway, to run a state initiative to make a law to compel my state to join other states to as for an amendment as described in link to repair harms to nation through grave harms to citizens, as outlined in link.

Other than that, it will be made as a bunch of us were told at work once,

"your job is similar to building a plane in the air as it is flying"

it will be made up on the fly, improvised.

and I've submitted this for comment from the above site...

I and some other contributors of ows.org online forum are becoming very encouraged by the plans for solutions to congresses' malfeasance offered here.

3 Questions

Has a lawyer given comment on the plan. Is it ready to go.

Is there a marketing, communications person or group for this?

I am encouraged on your site to bring it to my state legislator. Any last words on that.

Also, it's better than doing nothing....

B. Attempts to Use the Convention Method
Although the convention method for proposing amendments has never been used, the threat of a convention has sometimes spurred Congress to action. During debates over the Constitu‐ tion’s ratification, the threat of a second constitutional conven‐ tion was a key factor in Congress proposing the Bill of Rights.22 There have been several occasions where the number of state applications for a convention was close to reaching the re‐ quired two‐thirds; at least once during the course of events leading to the adoption of the Seventeenth Amendment, the threat of a constitutional convention may have spurred Con‐ gress to act preemptively to propose the desired amendment itself.23 The prospect of a convention may also have played a role in leading Congress to propose the Twenty‐first, Twenty‐ second, and Twenty‐fifth Amendments.24

Special interests' influence over Congress has become excessive. It causes government to promote special interests' well-being over the People's well-being. As a direct consequence, each year government squanders at least $350 billion of the People's wealth—over $4,000 per year from a family of four. Moreover, the related moral decay in our highest elected officials now permeates governance and the business elite, as evidenced by gross malfeasance, corruption, and government-sanctioned theft in many of our most trusted institutions. The situation is intolerable; we cannot permit it to stand.
Ideally, in our republic the People can elect representatives who will solve these problems. Unfortunately, special interests—for example, big business, lobbyists, multi-national corporations, military-industrial complex, foreign governments—select the slate of viable candidates in both parties and influence them long before the People vote. Today, our constitutional checks and balances cannot restrain the impact of media's enormous cost and its extremely persuasive technologies. The resulting huge campaign spending by special interests translates into almost permanent reelection of their chosen candidates. Inevitably, those elected have major obligations to their contributors.
Congress cannot and will not resolve these problems because solutions are contrary to the personal interests of a majority of its members. Voters may change political leadership, but, despite campaign promises, improvements are usually cosmetic. Congress is a law unto itself and can always reverse improvements, create loopholes, and make end-runs. Evidence shows that underlying causes remain unchanged; these systemic problems continue to grow. The Constitution's preamble defines fundamental concepts of our republic—government must promote the general welfare. Excessive promotion of special interests' welfare over the People is clearly dysfunctional governance.
We would be stupid to permit managers of a business to set their own pay, perquisites, ethics, and rules for vendor gifts—we know that such a company would be a disaster. Nevertheless, we permit congresspersons to do exactly this and more. So, how can we retain the benefits of good representative government while providing oversight control to keep congresspersons responsive to our wellbeing after we elect them?
The solution must lie in improved checks and balances—it is manifestly futile to keep hoping that a preponderance of congresspersons will somehow overcome their human nature. The literature abounds with authors who criticize government but offer no solution or hope that Congress will somehow implement a solution. This Plan takes a proactive stand: it applies the constitutional right of the People and the power of the States to enforce a solution upon Congress over inevitable congressional opposition. The plan follows the explicit remedy prescribed by the Founding Fathers in the U.S. constitution—it conforms strictly to the written word of the U.S. Constitution.

Only the People can control congressional excesses. History has repeatedly proved that Congress cannot and will not do it. Constitutional separation of powers bars such control by the President, Judiciary, or States. Moreover, a commission of appointed or elected members cannot have this power both because it is constitutionally unqualified and because its members are subject to manipulation by special interests and by Congress. Thus, the responsibility to limit congressional excesses falls unavoidably upon the People.
Politics is about power. Because congressional maneuvers and special interests largely nullify the People's votes, the People retain very little federal power. Nationwide Citizens' Ballot Initiatives are the only constitutional way for the People to gain significant power to set things right. However, the approach taken for State and City initiatives is inadequate—not least because they are wide open to special interests' abuses. Consequently, this Plan uses a nationwide ballot Initiative process that is a great improvement over that used in the States. In particular, it has ample safeguards ensuring that special interests can never gain control, that ballot initiatives will be important and clear, that Initiatives receive extensive public feedback before they get on the ballot, and that the number of initiatives will not overload the voters.
Nationwide ballot Initiatives are necessary not because the People have a perverse desire to exercise the congressional control function directly, but because they have profound convictions that Congress has ceased to be responsive to the popular will and that Congress has no innate ability to reform itself. The goal is to overcome Congress' detrimental resistance to change in order to permit long-term improvement of representative government—not to undermine or to micromanage Congress.
An Initiatives solution is entirely consistent with the Founding Fathers' views. For example:
"Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,-–That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it…" (Declaration of Independence 1776)

Direct Democracy Guidelines
The Boule shall ensure that direct democracy Initiatives comply with the Constitution. In order of priority, it shall focus on advancing Initiatives to:
Check and balance, provide oversight and remedy representative democracy, but not supersede it.
Set policies, principles, objectives and limits so that government shall best benefit the general well-being. In order that the nation's assets shall be available to serve the long-term well-being of the People, the Boule shall foster:
Reduction in waste for all forms of the nation's assets.
Increasing all forms of the nation's assets.
Promotion of effective efficiency—i.e., doing the right things well for the right objectives.
Resolve issues of importance to the People that the government has not addressed adequately, because, for example, government:
Is politically unable to take them up.
Will not resolve them because Congresspersons have a personal conflict of interests.
Will not resolve them because to do so would be contrary to the wishes of a set of special interest groups.
Is otherwise unwilling to resolve them.
Has neglected to deal with them.
The Boule shall avoid focusing on advancing Initiatives that:
Address problems that are at core symptomatic and/or intractable, however emotionally appealing (unless they tackle the core problems).
Will incur significant expenditures, but are unfunded (unless the funds are created by the Initiative or the costs are relatively small).
Comprise nationwide actions that could effectively be tried and proved first at a willing State level (unless they support a State trial).
Compete with or nullify Congressional legislation (unless the People clearly wish it).
Back to Rules Index

I would prefer to see a simple amendment ratified that would limit the political contributions of each person or entity to 1% of the U.S. median income ($270) per year and limited to candidates within their locality.

We have the initiative process in California, but money still unfairly influences elections.

1) The site puts forth a well thought out presentation of its plan including its own pros and cons for success.

Cons

1) With the exception of 16 states that can pass amendments directly through initiatives, it still boils down to faith in corporate bought elected representatives at both the state and ultimately still the federal level to do the people's bidding in ratifying the amendment. As is stated near the bottom,

"The People must trust their state legislators and their legislatures, in whom the Founding Fathers constitutionally entrusted the power and responsibility to prevent this disaster, to act decisively and courageously."

2) The focus on a specific type of Initiative process such as Boule rather than Oregonian can be a source of division leading to insufficient action. In bringing about change, it's best to stick with concepts that people will be the most familiar with as to not alienate them and then bring about further change once the main change has been established. This is the concept behind the Democratic Congress http://occupywallst.org/forum/amendment-for-a-democratic-congress/ which relies upon a simple nationwide expansion of the common initiative process being established first as a stepping stone towards possible greater democratic change.

~ Both U.S. and state constitutions rely on each state to limit federal Government's excesses. These are powerful obligations, because all state legislators have sworn oaths to support both constitutions. State legislators can fulfill their duty most prudently by putting the issue to a state referendum. (State governments can also gain important additional benefits.)
As shown in the schematic, (see 9 http://www.cusdi.org/index.html )State legislation, referenda, and initiatives are valid methods to initiate an Article V Convention. Referenda are preferable because they most clearly unite the constitutional authority of the States with the inalienable right of the People to alter their government. Their unity brings momentous constitutional authority to bear on any constitutional disputes with Congress. Referenda are available in all 50 states.

~ *If a majority of legislators in any of the 24 initiative states disregards their oaths, the People can use a state initiative to initiate the plan. If legislators in any of the other states disregard their oaths, the People must elect legislative majorities who will respect their duty to the People.
However, no matter how much authority the voters and state constitutions give to state referenda and initiatives, U.S. and state Supreme Court decisions generally argue that the State Legislature, not an initiative or referendum, must make the formal Amendment applications to Congress. The States should comply with this literal interpretation of Article V until the U.S. Supreme Court clarifies these matters.

~ Congress lacks the constitutional power to deny the States' application, though it may cause delays. Reasonable care will avoid second-method procedural issues and speed the process.

When several states support this plan, they should annex it and improve it. When they annex it, the states will have complete control over the Amendment's content and wording—this web site will surrender all rights. After 34 states have submitted applications, Congress shall call the Convention. The Convention will propose the Amendment. Congress will choose the ratification method. Finally, 38 States will ratify it. If state legislators embrace the plan, the Amendment will cost just a few million dollars and could take effect in as little as five years. If they oppose it, costs could climb past 250 million dollars and it could take perhaps 15 years.

The map shows which states have the initiative and referendum process (citizens can place issues on the ballot) and what type. Every state has some form of the legislative process which allows the government to place issues on the ballot and so therefore is not referenced in the map. Please click here for a complete listing of legislative referendum states and a breakdown of which states allow legislative constitutional amendments and those that allow legislative statutes.

I believe any activity that increases public participation in politics and activism ... or any kind of grass roots activity ... Is good for all of us. And any increase in activity at the state or local level is good for the national level.

Sorry. In my way I might have wanted to simplify the argument. The website takes some focus for me to dig into. It seemed that there was some cut and pasting going on in the discussion, but ... I was finding the subject difficult.

"If legislators in any of the other states disregard their oaths, the People must elect legislative majorities who will respect their duty to the People."

"However, no matter how much authority the voters and state constitutions give to state referenda and initiatives, U.S. and state Supreme Court decisions generally argue that the State Legislature, not an initiative or referendum, must make the formal Amendment applications to Congress."

The admission that the People must elect legislative majorities who will respect their duty to the People is a moot point as that has always been the obstacle. There is no getting around unresponsive representatives by simply replacing them with alternate unresponsive representatives. That's where the application of affidavits comes in.

An affidavit creates a legal condition for each individual candidate with specifics to be agreed to. As such, it automatically distinguishes candidates willing to legally commit to a popular demand from candidates who aren't willing, allowing the People to know who not to vote for. This would act as a political sifter fulfilling the need of the People to "elect legislative majorities who will respect their duty to the People." Without it, the People are left in the same self-perpetuating position of merely hoping that yet another candidate will finally keep their word to represent the People's interests.

A government's reason for being is to govern, period, regardless of what has been written.

.

"Experience has taught us, that men will not adopt and carry into execution measures the best calculated for their own good, without the intervention of a coercive power."

George Washington in a letter to John Jay dated August 1, 1786

.

"Those who contend for a simple democracy, or a pure republic, actuated by the sense of the majority, and operating within narrow limits, assume or suppose a case which is altogether fictitious. They found their reasoning on the idea, that the people composing the Society, enjoy not only an equality of political rights; but that they have all precisely the same interests, and the same feelings in every respect. Were this in reality the case, their reasoning would be conclusive. The interest of the majority would be that of the minority also; the decisions could only turn on mere opinion concerning the good of the whole, of which the major voice would be the safest criterion; and within a small sphere, this voice could be most easily collected, and the public affairs most accurately managed."

"We know however that no Society ever did or can consist of so homogeneous a mass of Citizens. In the savage State indeed, an approach is made towards it; but in that State little or no Government is necessary. In all civilized Societies, distinctions are various and unavoidable. A distinction of property results from that very protection which a free Government gives to unequal faculties of acquiring it. There will be rich and poor; creditors and debtors; a landed interest, a monied interest, a mercantile interest, a manufacturing interest. These classes may again be subdivided according to the different productions of different situations & soils, & according to different branches of commerce, and of manufactures. In addition to these natural distinctions, artificial ones will be founded, on accidental differences in political, religious or other opinions, or an attachment to the persons of leading individuals. However erroneous or ridiculous these grounds of dissention and faction, may appear to the enlightened Statesman, or the benevolent philosopher, the bulk of mankind who are neither Statesmen nor Philosophers, will continue to view them in a different light."

"Divide et impera, the reprobated axiom of tyranny, is under certain qualifications, the only policy, by which a republic can be administered on just principles."

A few selected thoughts of James Madison from a letter written to Thomas Jefferson dated October 24, 1787

.

Some, if not most of the founders of this government saw the 'common good' as being whatever they had determined it to be no matter how narrow that perspective may have been. Politicians today are no different.

A government's reason for being is to govern, period, regardless of what has been written.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all
men are created equal; that they are endowed by
their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that
among these, are life, liberty, and the pursuit of
happiness. That, to secure these rights, governments
are instituted among men, deriving their just
powers from the consent of the governed; that, when
ever any form of government becomes destructive
of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter
or to abolish it, and to institute a new government,
laying its foundation on such principles, and organi
zing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem
most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

.The Constitutoin... promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

laws and governing to secure the rights of people

"Experience has taught us, that men will not adopt and carry into execution measures the best calculated for their own good, without the intervention of a coercive power."

George Washington in a letter to John Jay dated August 1, 1786

.

"Those who contend for a simple democracy, or a pure republic, actuated by the sense of the majority, and operating within narrow limits, assume or suppose a case which is altogether fictitious. They found their reasoning on the idea, that the people composing the Society, enjoy not only an equality of political rights; but that they have all precisely the same interests, and the same feelings in every respect. Were this in reality the case, their reasoning would be conclusive. The interest of the majority would be that of the minority also; the decisions could only turn on mere opinion concerning the good of the whole, of which the major voice would be the safest criterion; and within a small sphere, this voice could be most easily collected, and the public affairs most accurately managed."

"We know however that no Society ever did or can consist of so homogeneous a mass of Citizens. In the savage State indeed, an approach is made towards it; but in that State little or no Government is necessary. In all civilized Societies, distinctions are various and unavoidable. A distinction of property results from that very protection which a free Government gives to unequal faculties of acquiring it. There will be rich and poor; creditors and debtors; a landed interest, a monied interest, a mercantile interest, a manufacturing interest. These classes may again be subdivided according to the different productions of different situations & soils, & according to different branches of commerce, and of manufactures. In addition to these natural distinctions, artificial ones will be founded, on accidental differences in political, religious or other opinions, or an attachment to the persons of leading individuals. However erroneous or ridiculous these grounds of dissention and faction, may appear to the enlightened Statesman, or the benevolent philosopher, the bulk of mankind who are neither Statesmen nor Philosophers, will continue to view them in a different light."

"Divide et impera, the reprobated axiom of tyranny, is under certain qualifications, the only policy, by which a republic can be administered on just principles."

A few selected thoughts of James Madison from a letter written to Thomas Jefferson dated October 24, 1787

.

Some, if not most of the founders of this government saw the 'common good' as being whatever they had determined it to be no matter how narrow that perspective may have been. Politicians today are no different."

state legislators took an oath to protect state and national constitutions, and they are obliged to seek remedy for state citizens, if national government is out of balance, that is why we have amendments and article 5, when government not representing the people, not functioning for common good, general welfare, it is up to states to seek redress of issues at national level, via 2nd method limited article V convention.

It takes the issue from the legislature and puts it on their citizens if they ask citizens opinion through a referendum, if the Boole is a good for Ammendments Purposes.

The pros are for the amendment from state's point of view.

Reasons PRO State Legislators' Support

` 1 U.S. Constitution requires state legislatures and legislators to

control congressional excesses that harm the People and to protect

rights

` 2 State Constitutions require legislatures and legislators to solve the

problems and protect the People from federal violations of state rights

` 3 Potential to limit federally mandated programs and their hidden state taxes

"state legislators took an oath to protect state and national constitutions, and they are obliged to seek remedy for state citizens, if national government is out of balance, that is why we have amendments and article 5, when government not representing the people, not functioning for common good, general welfare, it is up to states to seek redress of issues at national level, via 2nd method limited article V convention."

The untrustworthiness of the state legislatures is part of the problem. We're dealing with the same political parties and the same corporate bought representatives. Nothing compells them to do anything on behalf of the people which is why the oaths and amendments don't amount to much. It's like the foxes taking an oath and writing amendments for the chickens. So long as the foxes are united in their control, the oaths and amendments mean little.

How long should it take to get popular? The website has a copyright date of 2003 so it's already been around for 10 years yet it was your link to it that first brought it to my attention. How many more years is it estimated to take for it to get national attention?

Support for initiatives is not support for the Boule plan. The Boule plan requires far more involvement than the standard petition-originating initiatives that the public has been polled on. The polled public supports expansion of the existing standard initiative process. Ten years of internet presence for the Boule plan has yet to reveal such support.

It all comes down to marketing. Once an idea is put before the masses, it's in the hands of the masses to either embrace or reject. That's the extent of my involvement with my own ideas. I'm not invested in the public embracing them, I'm only invested in the public becoming aware of them. I leave the public to its own fate but only once it's been informed and therefore has an option.

"Procr
astination is a very dangerous option lest our republic descends into irreversible
surrogate plutocracy
—
i.e., wealthy special interests have the supreme power and arrange the
continual reelection of
representatives who govern as their surrogates.
Madison warned
about procrastination with the words "I
believe there are more
instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent
encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations."
The States should find their constitutional obligations and their benefits to be compelling reasons to supportthe Plan.Polls showthe People's support by a large majority. "

Many liberals and progressives, not to mention conservatives and wingnuts, bemoan the apathy of the electorate. It isn’t enough to just vote, they insist, once you elect somebody you have to actively force them to represent you, and they cite Franklin D. Roosevelt who said, “I agree with you, I want to do it, now make me do it.” The problem, they claim, isn’t with the system or with our representatives, but with us for not being organized and active enough to make our representatives represent us. Many elected representatives claim that they would like to represent their constituents, but, like FDR, they can’t unless they are made to.

If true, this would reflect poorly on us as a people. We have a basically good system, and some good representatives, but we are just too lazy and apathetic to make our representatives represent us.

This is all a lie. Let me give you an example. Back during the Bush administration a lot of people wanted to see Bush and Cheney impeached. In one district the desire for impeachment was so high that activists were able to collect signatures from more than 80% of the residents asking their representative, John Olver, to support impeachment. But when he was formally presented with the petition, his response was, “Spare me! I’m well aware that the overwhelming majority of my constituents want me to support impeachment. I will not.” His response would have been the same if the petition had signatures from 100% of his constituents. It wasn’t that people were too apathetic to care, or too lazy to try to make him represent them, it was that our Constitution never gave people the power to exercise their will through their elected representatives. As both the Bush and Obama administrations made clear, our government does not allow public opinion to influence policy decisions. We are not a democracy or a republic. In the United States power is vested in the hands of the government, not in the hands of the people.

In both a democracy and a republic, by definition, supreme power over government is vested in the hands of the people. In a democracy, the people exercise their power directly by voting on budgets, policy issues, and other matters of import, but in a republic the people exercise their power indirectly through their elected officials. In the United States we have no such power. We can ask our representatives to represent us, we can protest if they don’t, but we have no way to make them do our will because we have no power over them. Once they are elected, they are free to represent us, if they wish, or they can, if they choose, represent their big campaign donors, their personal ideologies, the interests of a foreign country, or anything else they want. We can petition until we turn blue and protest until we get ourselves shot, but we have no way to sway them. Sure we can wait until their terms of office, the only time they’re supposed to represent us, are over, and then try to elect somebody else who can’t be held accountable, but while our representatives are in office, while they are supposed to be representing us, we cannot make them do so.

Of course we can ask Congress to impeach them, but Congress doesn’t like to impeach its own Members. If one Member was impeached, other Members might be subject to impeachment in revenge, so that’s a can of worms they prefer not to open. Sometimes they threaten impeachment, or even begin impeachment proceedings, but they don’t impeach. There have been impeachments of some district judges, but no sitting President, Supreme Court Justice, or Member of Congress has ever been impeached: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_in_the_United_States

If your representatives appears to be representing you, it is because they chose to or their big donors told them to, not because you made them do it. You have no power to make them do anything. When you vote, you are not voting for representatives, you are voting for petty tyrants who may or may not represent you and over whom you have no power whatsoever. Once their term of office is over and they are no longer representing you, you cannot bring back to life the dead from the wars they funded with your taxpayer dollars or renounce the debts they incurred that your granchildren will still be paying . The damage they do while in office can be irreparable and you have no control over them while they’re in office. You can try to elect somebody else, somebody who tells smoother lies, but you will have no real power over them either.

Of course with corporate money even in local politics, gerrymandered districts, easily hacked and totally unverifiable central tabulators, you can never know for sure that your vote for a new representative was counted at all, no less counted for the candidate you tried to vote for.

Yet approximately 50% of the electorate vote anyway, hoping against hope that their vote might be counted and that they might be represented. The other half of us know better.

In a democratic form of government, a vote is the most precious right of all because it is the way that people exercise their power over government, either directly or through their representatives.

We do not have a democratic form of government in the United States. The Constitution gave us a plutocracy where we have no power over government to exercise.

So don’t berate yourself and your neighbors for not making your representatives do their jobs. You can’t. The 39 plutocrats who wrote the Constitution, the wealthy elite 1% of their time, made sure that you wouldn’t have that power, as they didn’t trust the “mob and rabble” of democracy and wanted those who owned the country, people like themselves, to always rule the country.

Since initiative democracy exists at the municipal level, it would be much easier to test the acceptability of the Boule plan at the municipal level. People throughout the country could decide whether or not the Boule form of initiative democracy is more preferable to the already existing petition form of initiative democracy. Of course, the petition form of initiative democracy would have to be engaged in to establish the Boule form of initiative democracy but everything has to start somewhere. Whether or not the Boule petition itself would get enough signatures for support would be an automatic indication of how acceptable it would be to people. This, in turn, would automatically bring about awareness of the issue for the state and national levels. The municipal level is the place to start because if people don't want it at that level, they're certainly not going to want it at any other level. On the other hand, if they do want it at that level, they will automatically support it for the other levels as well.

A legislative measure or legislative proposition (or sometimes "referred" measure) is a proposal placed on the ballot by the legislature. All states permit legislative measures (list) and all states except for Delaware require constitutional amendments to be approved by the voters at large. In some states, legislatures place nonbinding advisory measures on the ballot. Legislative measures are much more common than initiatives and referendums, and are about twice as likely to be approved. Some states, such as Florida, also allow certain commissions to refer measures to the ballot.

The overwhelming majority (nearly 90 percent) of American cities report having some form of referendum procedure. The data, however, indicates that there is little variation in this figure by type of community (region, population size, central city or suburban, etc.). There is, on the other hand, a clear variation in the presence of "non-binding" referendum by region. They are the least likely to be found in southern communities and most likely in New England and Mid-Atlantic cities.

As you've stated, they could just take it out of paychecks. This assumes that there would be enough people in OWS who pay taxes who would be willing to do this and accept the legal consequences and that such people would number large enough to get a political response. As someone who has monitored the "Untax" movement, I know that the government will single out people to make examples of them. Look up "Larken Rose" as an example.

That's why I suggested a nominal amount, say a hundred. I don't know, they probably really frown on it. I've always paid all my taxes on time. This year didnt withhold enough as 2 kids are now independent, so I owe.

If OWS seriously supported co-ops to the point of actually establishing them, OWS cooperative workers could effectively withhold their taxes since a hypothetical forced government withholding couldn't take place without the cooperation of employers.

"boils down to faith in corporate bought elected representatives at both the state and ultimately still the federal level to do the people's bidding in ratifying the amendment. As is stated near the bottom,"

Well, it mostly goes around the corrupted congress with ..." Second Method

The Congress, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, .... shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress.

Note: The "second method" calls an "Article V Convention" for proposing Amendments;
it does not call a Constitutional Convention that could rewrite the Constitution.

"The People must trust their state legislators and their legislatures, in whom the Founding Fathers constitutionally entrusted the power and responsibility to prevent this disaster, to act decisively and courageously."

` are you saying your state is as corrupt as national congress. That could be a problem then, as many are held by Republicans. (Florida?)

` but this may give more incentive to expose and defeat such corrupt officials

"Based on history, such an approach would not be advisable. "

` Still waiting for the alternative approach...there may be one, but patience is waning

2) The focus on a specific type of Initiative process such as Boule rather than Oregonian can be a source of division leading to insufficient action. In bringing about change, it's best to stick with concepts that people will be the most familiar with as to not alienate them and then bring about further change once the main change has been established. This is the concept behind the Democratic Congress http://occupywallst.org/forum/amendment-for-a-democratic-congress/ which relies upon a simple nationwide expansion of the common initiative process being established first as a stepping stone towards possible greater democratic change."

It was good enough for about 30,000 adult males of an ancient slave-owning imperial city-state who themselves had never been slaves, didn't owe any municipal debts, had completed their military training, and whose parents had both been Athenian citizens. It goes without saying that the US is not a city-state with a small general population that can regularly come together to make its decisions. The 500 member boule was designed for an ancient city-state, not a population of millions spread across a continent.

The alternative approach to having faith in politicians is to not have faith in them by insisting upon their adherence to affidavits to receive the voter's votes. That takes matters to the root of the problem. Either current politicians will comply or new politicians will arise who will comply.

"It was good enough for about 30,000 adult males of an ancient slave-owning imperial city-state who themselves had never been slaves, didn't owe any municipal debts, had completed their military training, and whose parents had both been Athenian citizens. It goes without saying that the US is not a city-state with a small general population that can regularly come together to make its decisions. The 500 member boule was designed for an ancient city-state, not a population of millions spread across a continent."

I see the Boole, which selects, proposes, and refines national initiaves,

or laws, as an intermediate step towards something better. (It

has an expiration clause in it.) It could have stopped some issues, like

the prolonged war in Iraq/Afghanistan. That would have been worth it

alone. They are to sift through proposals, refine them, and put them to

all the people for approval or not. I am sure it won't fix everything, but

could it have reversed citizen's united? It would have been raised as a

serious issue and put to the people. Could it have halted bank give

aways? Possibly, and could have put in limits. Could it break up too big

too fail? potentially. The whole people have the final say on the

proposals, initiatives. Might it propose term limits? that might help

What is the difference between 30,000 and 300,000,000. Now we have

technology that can close the gap. Still it should serve to

limit corruption and serve as an oversight to Congress and rougue

presidets, and giving billionaires and corporations undeserved tax

rates. Ordinary people would have a voice again in laws of the land.

"The alternative approach to having faith in politicians is to not have faith in them by insisting upon their adherence to affidavits to receive the voter's votes. That takes matters to the root of the problem. Either current politicians will comply or new politicians will arise who will comply."

Who is going to administer affidavits and who says the public will vote

them out in the end, unless it was automatic means for dismissal. Might

It's the public who administers the affidavits. It's the public that comes together to organize and agree upon the affidavits and refuse to vote for candidates who don't sign. If the PIRGs are involved, it will be the PIRGs that assist organizing the public.

We always prepare for important things in specific ways. The logical, constitutional way to prepare for ART5 is to assure the "masters", the people can define constitutional intent. There are 3 things that are very unconstitutional in this nation that need to be remedied before ART5 or any national initiative.

Preparatory amendment consists of 3 amendments, yet to be determined, that end the abridging of free speech, reform campaign finance and secure a fair vote count.

With preparatory amendment everyone agrees that those 3 things need to be fixed BEFORE the convention meets to consider amendment generally.

Lincoln said " the people are the masters of the congress and the courts (1859).

Well I support direct democracy. I agree with you, this effort will not be easy, and certainly the current politicians can derail the effort. We can improve our odds if we get "better" more supportive pols in office.

[-] 2 points by jrhirsch (4378) from Sun City, CA 5 hours ago
I would prefer to see a simple amendment ratified that would limit the political contributions of each person or entity to 1% of the U.S. median income ($270) per year and limited to candidates within their locality.
We have the initiative process in California, but money still unfairly influences elections.

.........................

That is the big question.

How can people help?

......I'll think on that,

I think to join with some others of like mind and visit your state leg. Representative, and discuss this and the money out idea.

....that you want to know where each other stands.

Maybe affidavits for support from local polls, so there would be "authority" to point to for support of the idea.

Maybe is best to have a couple of solutions from which to choose? I don't know maybe 1 less divisive?

.....

I think we need to get something, one or both of these plans, run some polls of people, maybe even just neighbors, to see if they like the ideas, so there are numbers of supporters to show your legislator, too.

I think another Ows friend is working on some software for that, but maybe making a questionnaire of questions, and just phoning a random sampling, or polling people out in public too.

I don't have the marketing background.

..........

I dont know,.....i havent done this before. as one said why reinvent wheel? BeCause old one is defective, or out of commission, or still being designed.

This seems all a new path for me.

So what think you that must be done?
Which may be the better move, or both.